Just cause employment relationship

Employment Standards | Employment Standards | Just Cause

just cause employment relationship

While business cause may be a corporate justification for a decision to end the employment relationship, it does not necessarily constitute legal cause with the. Termination for cause generally occurs when an employee makes a If an employment relationship is terminated for cause, the employer will. Although an employer may have just cause to terminate your employment, to the root of the employment relationship, such that the underlying relationship and .

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Once a firm makes a decision about which approach it is going to use with its employees, it must be very careful to stick to that decision. Look at the following example; Ed B. The employee handbook stated that the first 90 days on the job was a probationary period.

He was evaluated favorably. The performance appraisal form did not contain an Employment-at-Will statement and the probationary period was shown to be an implied and accepted contract between employer and employee. However, the employee handbook also contained a section, which spelled out a progressive step-discipline system.

The court found that Lionel M. Employment-at-Will simply means that the employer and employee have a working arrangement where either party can terminate at any time, with or without cause and with or without notice and regardless of the manner in which wages are paid.

just cause employment relationship

Vance Redwood Lumber Co. Most of the exceptions can be categorized under three broad legal headings: This just underscores the cost when the law is not carefully adhered to for Employment-at-Will. Public Policy Exceptions The termination of an employee based upon requiring the employee to violate a state or federal Law, a state or federal Constitution, or professional regulations or codes of ethics is not allowed.

Termination for filing a safety complaint with OSHA. Termination because of military requirements.

just cause employment relationship

Termination for serving on a jury. Termination for refusing to subject oneself to sexual advances. Termination for discussing one's salary. The list above gives a good indication of what is involved.

The list is far from complete. Dozens and dozens of public policy exceptions exist. Implied Employment Contract This aspect of personnel relations has given companies trouble for years.

The use of a probationary period in an Employment-at-Will relationship is not advised. Normally, once the employee has completed the probationary period, beware of statements such as the following: You will be employed by the company as long as your job performance meets the standards of the position. When management makes this type of statement it creates a legally binding situation that the company will only discharge for a performance-related item.

In Employment-at-Will situations, it is of paramount importance not to have a progressive discipline program presented in any official way, such as in an employee handbook.

Employment Standards

A stated progressive discipline program becomes a contract between the employer and the employee. This implied contract, of course, precludes summary termination.

Cases have been argued and won by employees that performance appraisal systems create a perception of continued employment. If a company has a goal-setting exercise, that sets future performance targets for an employee and the employee meets the goals; the company will have a hard time terminating the employee using an Employment-at-Will approach.

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings This category of Employment-at-Will exceptions derives from a legal theory of contracts developed in the insurance law arena. Under this theory it is understood that the parties will not treat each other unfairly or act in a manner of malice or bad faith toward each other. The more senior an employee is, the more serious the conduct will be considered to be. Third, courts look to see whether the employer gave a warning before termination.

Where the misconduct occurred in the past, and the employer said nothing about it, the employer would have to have given a warning that such misconduct will not be tolerated before dismissing the employee without notice. These factors are used as guidelines in answering the second question, mentioned above. In this case, an employee experienced high blood pressure resulting from hypertension, and saw a physician about his condition.

The physician prescribed medication that would allow the employee to continue working as before, however he recommended that an option might be to seek a less demanding position at work.

The employee asked his employer to be transferred to a less demanding position, without informing management of his ability to continue working in the same position with the prescribed medication. The determination is the same, involving an examination of the facts in the case, and answering the two broad questions mentioned above.

The following are some examples: Fraud and theft are examples of dishonesty.

  • Just Cause vs. Employment-At-Will
  • Just Cause Definition:
  • At-will employment

For example, in Geluch v. See Breach of Trust A breach of trust is as it sounds: However, attention must be paid to the particular facts to tell for sure if a breach of trust has taken place. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commercea financial advisor at the CIBC, responsible for securing client loans, mortgages and other investment portfolios, frequently cashed cheques on behalf of her husband into her account and gave him money withdrawn from the bank, without waiting the required time for clearance.

Just Cause Discipline

Similarly, in Dowling v. He lowered insurance rates for certain clients in exchange for the purchase of computers for personal use at their wholesale price. In addition, he entered into secret arrangements with select clients, whereby he lowered the cost of insurance and split any amounts made as profit over and above the regular price with them.

Usually, the courts will not allow an employer to fire an employee for a single, minor incident of insubordination, unless it was of some significance. The employee had constantly undermined the reporting structure and had considered herself an equal with her supervisor, and had behaved as though she had the authority to make the decisions she did, even though she had no such authority.

Despite several warnings that this kind of conduct would not be tolerated in the workplace, the employee continued her campaign of insubordination. Just Cause was found in this case. Just Cause was also found in Kontopidis v. Coventry Lane Automobiles, Ltd. The employee also removed automobiles from the body shop without explanation. Absenteeism An employer would, in most cases, be expected to formally warn an employee before proceeding with outright dismissal under the ground of absenteeism.

An employer could not justify firing an employee who was late on only one occasion. On the other hand, persistent lateness and absenteeism may justify dismissal if the employee was given adequate warnings and failed to correct this behavior and did not have a valid reason for the conduct. This was the case in Kontopidismentioned above: